AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER(J)
The present Review Application is preferred by the respondents of the O.A. under Rule 17 of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for reviewing the order dated 23.12.2022 passed in O.A. No. 111/2019, by which the Tribunal after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length, passed the following orders:-
“11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that O.A. deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Respondents are directed to issue necessary orders forthwith, in no case later than a period of eight weeks from the date of this order, for regularizing the services of the applicants w.e.f. the date they become eligible in accordance with the scheme and guidelines for regularization of casual workers as was in existence at the relevant point of time and in accordance with letter dated 1.10.2009 (Annexure No. 4 to the O.A. ) issued by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,Range-I, Moradabad for regularization of casual labours in pursuance of Hon’ble Supreme Courts judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi in which name of all the applicants are present along with their date of appointment/ engagement.”
Learned counsel for the respondents in O.A. has filed the present Review application and in para 5 of the Review application, it has been stated that applicants had not completed the requisite service for grant of temporary status on the date of issue of O.M. dated 10.9.1993 as such they are ineligible under the aforesaid scheme. In para 10 of the Review Application, it is stated that applicants have not worked continuously for more than one years as on 10.9.1993 as such they are not entitled for temporary status and subsequent regularization of their services as per O.M. dated 10.9.1993 and requested for review of the order dated 23.12.2022 passed in O.A. No. 111/2019.
The judgment in question was rendered by this Tribunal on 23.12.2022 in O.A. No.111/2019. The limitation of 30 days has been prescribed under Rule 17(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
The copy of the aforesaid order/ judgment has been obtained in the last week of December, 2022 as admitted by the review applicant in para 2 of the Affidavit filed along with delay condonation application.
This Review Application has been filed with delay. Delay Condonation Application has also been filed. The matter of condonation of delay of review application came up before the Full Bench of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.Narasimha Rao Vs. Regional Joint Directror of School Education, Warangal and others -2005(4) SLR 720. The matter was also examined by the Full Bench with reference to Section 22(3)(f) of the AT Act, 1985 and other relevant provisions of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, provisions of the Limitation Act etc. and it is held that “a Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the Review Application.” It was laid down that the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to condone the delay by taking aid and assistance of either sub section (3) of Section 21 of the Act or Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. It may be mentioned here that provisions of Rule 19 of A.P. Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 which are similar to above Rule 17(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 were also considered which are as under:-
“ No application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed.”
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Ajit Babu and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1997 (6) SCC 473, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
“ In the present case, the view taken by the Tribunal that the only remedy available to the affected persons is to file a Review of the judgment which affects them and not to file a fresh application under Section 19 of the Act. Section 22(3)(f) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to review its decisions. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure and Rules) (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") provides that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Ordinarily, right of review is available only to those who are party to a case. However, even if we give wider meaning to the expression "a person feeling aggrieved" occurring in Section 22 of the Act whether such person aggrieved can seek review by opening the whole case decided by the Tribunal. The right of review is not a right of appeal where all questions decided are open to challenge. The right of review is possible only on limited grounds, mentioned in Order 47 of these Code of Civil Procedure. Although strictly speaking the Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable to the tribunals but the principles contained therein surely have to extended. Otherwise there being no limitation on the power of review it would be an appeal and there would be no certainty of finality of a decision. Besides that, the right of review is available if such an application is filed within the period of limitation. The decision given by the Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality. If such a power to review is permitted, no decision is final, as the decision would be subject to review at any time at the instance of party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been given can not monitor the case for all times to come. Public policy demands that there should been to law suits and if the view of the tribunal is accepted the proceedings in a case will never come to an end. We, therefore, find that a right of review is available to the aggrieved persons on restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation.”
Thus, the right of review is available, if such an application is filed within the period of limitation. The decision given by the Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality. If such a power to review is permitted without any limitation then no decision would be final because the decision would be subject to review at any time at the instance of the party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been given cannot monitor the case for all times to come. Therefore, the public policy demands that there should be an end to legal cases.
It is therefore, evident that delay has vitiated this review application and delay cannot be condoned by this Tribunal. Accordingly, delay condonation application No. 873/2023 in filing review Application No. 10/2023 is rejected.
As far as merit is concerned, in para 9 of the judgment, this Tribunal has clearly observed that in the letter dated 1.10.2009 (Annexure No. 4 to the O.A. ) issued by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,Range I, Moradabad for regularization of casual labours in pursuance of Hon’ble Supreme Courts judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, name of all the applicants are present along with their date of appointment/engagement. Date of applicant No.1 Shri Jai Veer Singh is present at Sl. No. 4 and his date of appointment is shown as 1.1.1995. Name of applicant No. 2 Shri Narayan Dutt Sharma is present at Sl.No. 3 and date of appointment is shown as 1.1.1994. Name of applicant No. 3 Shri Suraj Pal is present at sl.No.1 at Annexure B and date of engagement is shown as 20.9.1993. Name of applicant No. 4 Shri Mohar Singh is shown at sl.No.5 and his date of appointment is shown as 1.1.1996. Name of applicant No.5 Shri Lakhan Singh is present at Sl. No. 7 at Annexure B and date of engagement is shown as 1.2.1996. Name of applicant no. 6 Shri Dheeraj Ram is shown at Sl. NO. 6 at Annexure C and his date of engagement is shown as March 1997. Name of applicant No. 7 Shri Ramesh Kumar is available at Sl. No. 5 and his date of engagement is shown as May 1997. Name of applicant No. 8 is available at Sl. No. 1 and his date of appointment is shown as 1.9.1993. Hence, it is clear that applicants have been engaged in the respondents department during the period 1993 to 1997 and plea taken by the respondents that applicants have been engaged as casual worker w.e.f. 1.7.2010 is not correct. Vide order dated 22.1.2010 (Annexure No. A-5 to the O.A.), respondents have regularized the services of 59 casual labours and at Sl. No. 59 of this list, to whom the respondents have regularized was engaged as casual labour on 1.7.1998 i.e. later than the engagement of the applicants, which proves that applicants have been a victim of discriminatory treatment and considering this fact, this Tribunal allowed the O.A.
By means of the present review application, the applicant has tried to re-open the entire issue afresh.
The scope of review is very limited. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, that review proceedings cannot be considered by way of an appeal and have to be strictly continued to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and review petition is required to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also been pleased to observe that while deciding the review, the matter cannot be re-apprised and only typographical error apparent on record can be reviewed.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Chand Jain(Dead) Through Lrs, Vs. Motilal (Dead) Through Lrs. Reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 has been pleased to observe as under:-
10.It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
The scope of review is very limited and it is not permissible for the Tribunal to act as an appellate authority in respect of original order passing a fresh order and re-hearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits.
Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 23.12.2022. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed on the grounds of condonation of delay as well as on merits.
No order as to costs.